Summary: We found no fault on Mr J’s complaint about the Council failing to properly consider a planning application for a nearby driving test centre. Nor was there fault with its complaints procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains about the Council failing to:
1. properly consider the impact granting planning consent for a replacement 7 days a week driving test centre with increased capacity will have on residents’ amenities and the ability of surrounding roads to cope with the increased volume of traffic; and
2. allow him to complain properly as its website limited his options to those on a drop-down list.
2. As a result, this will affect the quality of residents’ amenities because of more traffic congestion, accidents, noise, and pollution.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information Mr J sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr J and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr J has lived in his home for more than thirty years and throughout that time, there was a driving test centre a few hundred metres away. The centre only served learner drivers from the local area. He says it was a small-scale operation.
7. The Council received a planning application to remove and replace the existing building on site, as well as carrying out resurfacing and drainage works. The new building would also operate as a driving test centre. The proposed hours of use were from 7am to 7pm during the week, 8am to 5pm on Saturday, and 10am to 4pm on Sundays and bank holidays. The number of driving examiners would increase from 11 to 20 with the provision of 13 staff car parking spaces and 12 candidate spaces.
8. Mr J did not make representations about the application as he received no notification of it. The Council received representations which raised concerns about the impact on traffic, residents’ amenities, pollution, and the potential of it merging with another centre.
9. Mr J is concerned about the impact this centre will now have on the local area which contains an old person’s home, schools, and an industrial site. He says it is already a busy area.
10. He is unhappy because when he complained to the Council about its decision, he was advised to use its online complaints page and select ‘change of use’ from a drop-down list. He argues the Council dismissed his complaint because of the selected category. It told him his concern about increased activities on the site was considered as part of the planning process. Mr J believes his complaint was not investigated properly.
11. I have considered each of Mr J’s complaints:

Notification

12. He complained he was not told about the planning application to refurbish the site and only heard about it after the Council granted planning consent.
13. The Council confirmed it was not treated as a major planning application which means it publicised it by way of site notices as well as letters sent to certain nearby properties only. The local councillor was also notified of the application.
14. The Council accepts not sending Mr J a notification letter about the application as his property does not adjoin the application site.

My findings

15. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because:

• this was not a ‘major’ planning application under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. A major application includes those where the provision of a building or buildings create floor space of 1,000 square metres or more. The floor space was less than this figure under this application.
• this means the legal requirement for publicity was to display a site notice in at least one place on or near the land which the application relates for not less than 21 days or, by serving the notice on any adjoining owner or occupier. During my initial telephone call with Mr J, he told me there had been a notice on a gate to the site.
• the publicity used also complied with the requirements of the Council’s own Statement of Community Involvement. This sets out how it will involve local communities and others in the consideration of planning applications including who is consulted, when, and how.
• the Council was not, therefore, legally required to bring this to Mr J’s direct attention by way of a notification letter.

Traffic impact:

16. Mr J argued the Council failed to properly consider the likely impact the increased traffic would have on local traffic and residents’ amenities.
17. The Council explained environmental and highway issues were considered by its own environmental and transport advisors which were taken in to account in the planning officer’s report.
18. The planning officer’s report noted Transportation Development raised no objection subject to certain conditions. It also noted the Transport Statement, a copy of which I have seen, sent in support of the application, said it is likely traffic will increase to and from the site. It considered accessibility to public transport within reasonable walking distance from the site. The applicant also provided a framework travel plan to encourage greater use of sustainable modes of travel, such as walking or using the bus, for example. This would only apply to staff as candidates would clearly need to use their own vehicles for the test.
19. It also considered noise from the car park and considered restricting the hours of operation. This would prevent driving tests in the first and last hour of each weekday. The aim was to protect residential amenities. The Transport Statement gave the number of vehicle trips generated each day by the new proposal. This showed an increase of 49 vehicle moments each day compared to previous levels.

My findings

20. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because the evidence shows the Council took account of the impact increased traffic would have when granting consent. The Transport Statement, for example, was considered. This set out the existing and proposed vehicle trips for the site, including those for test candidates. Increased traffic was accepted as a consequence of granting consent, as was the likelihood of on-street parking both by staff and candidates.

Parking:

21. Mr J complains about parking provision on site which he says has not increased enough to prevent parking outside the site on neighbouring roads. Waiting candidates will cause a nuisance to residents.

My findings

22. I found no fault on this complaint because:

• the planning officer’s report noted the number of parking spaces would increase from 22 to 27 (13 staff spaces and 12 candidate spaces along with two disabled spaces).
• the report noted staff and candidates would likely park on neighbouring roads. It noted there were no waiting restrictions on surrounding roads. The officer decided this was not a reason for refusing the proposal.
• there was concern about the possibility of parking affecting visibility splays to nearby junctions which could be resolved by a condition. The recommended condition required the applicant to submit a review to look at the need to make Traffic Regulation Orders next to entry and exit points to the site which would cover the entire length of the road and its junctions. The aim would be for the applicant to implement measures needed to safeguard pedestrians and drivers from the potential impact from it.

The condition imposed in the decision notice required the developer to follow the Travel Plan, which was in the Transport Statement, and to maintain visibility splays at entry and exit points.

Hours of operation:

23. Mr J is unhappy with the new hours of operation for the site. The Council consented to the site operating from 7am to 7pm during the week, 8am to 5pm Saturdays, and 10am to 4pm on Sundays and bank holidays. No tests could take place before 8am or after 6pm. This condition was included to protect the amenities of residents.
24. The Council explained it is unclear if the site’s operating hours were increased because its previous hours were unknown.

My findings

25. I found no fault on this complaint because:

• environmental services were consulted and recommended placing a condition on any consent granted for operating hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 4pm on Sundays. It agreed staff could enter the site earlier.
• evidence confirmed the Council did not know the permitted hours and days, having checked the planning history for the site. What this meant was the Council could have been challenged had it restricted days and hours of operation below that which had previously been in place, provided the site operator had proof.
• the planning officer’s report considered the hours of operation in terms of limiting the potential for noise and disturbance from the site. This was why the consent restricted its operation so it could not provide driving tests in the first or last hour of the day.

26. I am satisfied the Council considered the hours of operation before granting consent.

Merging of sites:

27. Mr J complains the site merged with a theory test centre. He says this was not disclosed to the Council during the planning process. He complains about the extra impact this will have on the amenities of local residents in terms of increased traffic and disturbance, for example.
28. The Council explained it was unable to confirm it knew of the intention to merge the sites at the time it granted consent. Even if it had been aware, when assessing the application, it had to consider the impact of the proposed development.

My findings

29. I found no fault on this complaint. The Council had to consider and decide the application it received. The application was for the removal of the existing building and erection of a replacement one along with resurfacing and drainage works.

Complaints procedure:

30. Mr J completed an online planning enforcement complaint form in December 2022. This said the change of use of the centre, which was now a merged driving test centre and a driving and theory test centre, had not been disclosed by the applicant when considered by the Council. This meant residents could not make representations about it at the time.
31. A week later, the Council responded saying the final officer report referred to the plan to close other test centres and bring their activities to this centre. This was referring to a representation made by a local resident. The response indicated this means it was considered as part of the planning process. Mr J is unhappy the email did not sign post him to the next stage of its complaint procedure.
32. An email to his councillor confirmed the complaint decision and explained how he could complain to us as he had now exhausted its complaints procedure. The councillor advised Mr J of this the following month.

My findings

33. I found no fault on this complaint. I make this finding because:

• it is clear from the form Mr J submitted that he reported a breach of planning control and had not made a formal complaint under the Council’s corporate complaints procedure.
• the Council’s website page he used to submit this form is headed ‘Report a planning breach’. The page refers to ‘complaints about development taking place without planning permission’. I also note the foot of the page provides a link to ‘Make a complaint’. This might well have caused him to believe he was making a formal complaint against the Council rather than making a report about a breach of planning law.
• this page also refers to making a complaint through its formal complaints procedure and the right to complain to us after exhausting it.

34. The webpage might have been clearer in its terminology by making the distinction between submitting a ‘report’ of a planning breach and submitting a formal ‘complaint’ against the planning department sharper. It could have also been clearer about the separate procedure for making a report and for making a complaint. Overall, I found no fault on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I found no fault on Mr J’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman